I can actually believe he does that. Doesn't stop him being a very good speaker though and he always makes good points and tends to win arguments. Campbell (he was comms director, or were you just being a cynic there?) and Johnson are both of the left, they just know what wins elections. And they're all more convincing than Galloway.Question Time & This Week
- Thread starter Liam147
- Start date
I can actually believe he does that. Doesn't stop him being a very good speaker though and he always makes good points and tends to win arguments. Campbell (he was comms director, or were you just being a cynic there?) and Johnson are both of the left, they just know what wins elections. And they're all more convincing than Galloway.Melanie Phillips is losing her shit.
The Question Time audience is more Punch and Judy than PMQs, and those in studio go in for the cheap points just like MPs too [not that they would appreciate the comparison i'm sure].
I only caught about fifteen minutes of discussion on Syria, of which Boris seemed to come out on top i thought. Phillips was akin to Coulter lite and Davey struggled to find a sensible answer to fairly simple question from the audience. I couldn't take Brand's contribution seriously, although it got plenty of applause for being a politically slanted Big Brother's Big Gob.
I only caught about fifteen minutes of discussion on Syria, of which Boris seemed to come out on top i thought. Phillips was akin to Coulter lite and Davey struggled to find a sensible answer to fairly simple question from the audience. I couldn't take Brand's contribution seriously, although it got plenty of applause for being a politically slanted Big Brother's Big Gob.
I thought he made his points well. Actually on the Syria issue he made a couple of good points. Did seem like he was trying to score some points with the audience but sure everyone does that.
If you mean the question where he was asked if he could guarantee there would be a vote on it and that he would commit his party to that stance, I think that's far from a straightforward question to answer.
I reckon we should change Question Time to Politics Time, and get rid of the audience in the studio. It's just a leftist mob because anyone in the centre ground doesn't want to bother attending.
People on the centre ground are the most boring.
Yeh but the type of people who sit in the QT audience are just so annoying. Last night we had some random woman shouting from the back, some incoherent twat telling Melanie Phillips she was paranoid and then looked like he was going to wet himself when Dimbleby asked him to explain himself, and the applause for Brand for everything he said was socialist worker party stuff.
I've sat in the QT audience.
Feck off Al.
Feck off Al.
I thought the British public were a staunch majority of Daily Mail reading Tory voters Al?
Oh of course.
I just don't know who these people are who go on QT. Why can't people sit quietly and talk when they're asked to, like us normal ones?
How was it?
It was good but I was more concerned because the ****** that I worked with had turned up. (s)he was an active conservative and I really didn't fancy sitting with her. I don't recall who the guests were as this was back in 1998.
lol only you Grinns.
You get tons of rightwing reactionaries in the audience too, largely depends on where it's held. Last night was quite rowdy though, but Melanie Phillips didn't help herself when she started abusing the audience during her Iran speech channelling her inner Mitt.
When I first met her she looked like an ugly bird but when she said 'ello' in a gruff voice I did a double-take. She stood her round every time though so I liked her.
That happened on last week's Question Time as well, funnily enough.
From what i can recall of the Syria discussion he didn't appear to add anything beyond some platitudes to the debate. Oh and that nobody cares about World Refugee Day as if that is the be-all-and-end-all of expression regarding humanitarian concerns.
He may well have said some thought provoking elsewhere on the show which i didn't see [i heard a short clip on drugs].
It just annoys me when politicians are so obviously and repeatedly failing to answer a question like that, adopting the approach of responding to a point which wasn't actually made to them.
He could have gone with:
"I am not myself the leader of the Liberal Democrats however Nick Clegg has stated that it would be wrong for us to arm the rebels. Furthermore William Hague has assured MPs that there would be a vote on such a policy in the Commons."
Perhaps, but I'd cut him a little leeway. It's not his place to commit his party, and even with Clegg having commented independently, if Davey had reason to believe the government was still considering not holding a vote then he may want to be hesitant about highlighting comments his colleagues (particularly Lib Dems) made that intimated otherwise.
Of course that is giving him the benefit of the doubt and the more likely explanation is that he panicked slightly when asked such a direct question in that kind of public environment, but asking a Minister to provide such guarantees when they're in no position to do so, those tend to be some of the toughest questions. The micro-analysis of every comment in the media can be pretty vicious, and if that weren't there then Ministers would of course feel more comfortable providing their own assessment rather than drastically trying to conjure up the lines (often on a different Minister's portfolio) and coming up with the non-answers that we all find frustrating.
From what i recall he made some points about the lack of trust in Govt decisions on war following on from the Iraq conflict. He came across quite well and he said that a humanitarian effort may be best placed rather than arming either side. Fair point for me. His points ondrug addictions were quite personal which is understandable given his past. He wasn't fantastic but he gave the layman a voice and a few one liners too.
That's not like you, Nick.
I suppose with the virtual guarantee that the politicians will offer mostly cliched responses, the BBC should be looking for more originality and depth from the other guests.
It's a nice 'make yourself feel good' angle to pursue, but did he actually say what was wrong with the current humanitarian effort or what different policies he would like to see? Just said something that pretty much everyone would endorse and got some applause. Brand is out in Beirut i believe later this year as part of his world tour, perhaps he could give part or all of the proceeds to a foundation for those Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan e.t.c.
Yeah that would be a nice gesture. He did mention the number for refugees at the moment and how Britain should be trying to find funds for their relocation rather than arming rebels which is a good sentiment.
The audience sounds okay so far, for a QT one.
******* Sergeant and a few of the above have made some good points about HS2 IMO,. A bit laughable to hear a KPNG report being criticised because your can't quantify the project, what nonsense.
******* Sergeant and a few of the above have made some good points about HS2 IMO,. A bit laughable to hear a KPNG report being criticised because your can't quantify the project, what nonsense.
Just tuned in, this is weird.
What's going on? I hear it's in South Africa?
Yeah it's in Johannesburg. It's just odd, it's not really about Mandela which I assume was the reason for them going. It just feels like a gimmick and Dimbleby is understandably out of his depth.
Little disappointed tonight. Would like to have seen Dorries' point about how they've got more people in employment (they haven't) further called out rather than just be touched upon. The manipulation of employment figures needs to end. It's propaganda plain and simple. Didn't really like when Susie Boniface said what Paul Nuttall said was racist before adding 'I'll explain why' without actually doing so. He was in the wrong audience too. UKIP's deputy in south London? Pointless.
Yeah, I thought Susan Boniface was well out of line. She should have been asked to justify her accusation.
It was funny to see Nuttall squirm at the end when his comment about more competition being needed in the NHS was brought up. Dimbleby should have asked him plainly he supports a private health system.
Can you expand on your point about the employment figures? Numbers are higher but is your concern around what % that equates to population wise?
No, the fact that Tories bang on about how they've got people in employment, omitting that many of them are on zero hour contracts. My brother's been on a four hour contract for over a year now and my cousin was on a zero hour contract for ages. That's not employment I'm afraid.
They tend to have a UKIP person on most weeks now, they're a real player at the moment.
Ah I see. To be fair to the government the employment rate has gone up, including the number of those in full time employment, but you're right there's still far too high a % who would like to work full time but are restricted to part time/zero hours.
Another scandalous QT where they go to a Labour stronghold for the 1000th consecutive show.
Some really good points from the other members of the panel are met with silence and then Chukka gets going and is virtually given a standing ovation as soon as he opens his mouth.
Some really good points from the other members of the panel are met with silence and then Chukka gets going and is virtually given a standing ovation as soon as he opens his mouth.
Boniface accusing Nuttall of racism was horrendous too. She, like so many on the left, continues to refuse to discuss immigration seriously, merely citing her own parents as examples of 'good' immigrants as an argument in favour of all immigration forever.
I agree but the problem is there's no sensible immigration contribution from either side. It's either "my dad was an immigrant and never raped anyone" or it's the "Britain's full, put up the 'no more space at the inn' sign at the borders" argument.
Absolutely. It's enraging. It's probably the biggest issue we're facing as a nation at the moment(population increase, low paid work, saturated job market) and we're doing nothing about it.
That said, if we had a debate, the result wouldn't matter because our agreement with the EU stops us from controlling our own country.
Complain about hyperbole in immigration debate, call it 'the biggest issue we're facing as a nation' anyway.
I quite like the open borders within Europe although I think maybe freedom of movement should be subject to more criteria whereby each country is grouped with others and freedom of movement exists for citizens between those groups of countries. The groupings can be based on geographical or economic reasons so the Belgians who work in France can still do so, the Dutch who work in Belgium etc. But that beyond that immediate area there will be criteria based immigration, not complete freedom of movement. It'll be far laxer than going to the US to work but it won't be as easy as pitching up to go to live in nation whom your country has a specific open border agreement with.
Countries would have overlapping agreements too.
Example:
Group 1: Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, UK
Group 2: Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy
...so all the Germans, French, Belgians and Dutch can move around and live wherever they like, including the UK and Italy and British and Italian citizens can live in Germany, France, Holland and Belgium but there would be tighter regulations when it came to Italians moving to the UK or visa versa.